Retrieve authorized device, vSmart, or vManage ID lists from a Cisco SD-WAN Controller using its system IP to verify control-plane device authorization.
Get the authorized device lists held by a Controller (vSmart). Use a controller system-ip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | Which list to return (default: devices) | |
| device_id | Yes | Controller (vSmart) system-ip |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a read of controller-held data and that the argument must be a vSmart system-ip (not a vEdge), but says nothing about scope, permissions, or result size.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the resource and end with the key input constraint. No wasted clauses, though the second sentence largely restates the schema's device_id description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. The main residual gap is not explaining the semantics of the `list` selector.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that device_id is a Controller system-ip but adds nothing about the `list` enum values (devices/vsmarts/vmanage_id) beyond the plural phrasing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the authorized device lists held by a Controller (vSmart)'), and the explicit 'Controller (vSmart)' qualifier distinguishes it from the near-identical sibling get_validator_valid_devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Use a controller system-ip' gives a precondition for the input, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_validator_valid_devices or list_controllers. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.